From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Judo at the 2005 Maccabiah Games

Judo at the 2005 Maccabiah Games (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTDATABASE, fails WP:SIGCOV Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 20:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: WP:VAGUEWAVE: While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand. When asserting that an article should be deleted, it is important to explain why. The same is true when asserting that something does follow policy. Please explain and specify why this article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CLalgo ( talkcontribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. There is no context here, the entire article is just a set of data, copied from the only source. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a sports stats site. Vexations ( talk) 21:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or maybe even Redirect It shouldn't just be a dataset page copy and pasted off a single reference, but it seems it should just redirect back to it's parent 2005 Maccabiah Games Not a strong page and should not stand on it's own.-- Littehammy ( talk) 00:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (I'm repeating what I said here as it applies here as well) We should decide on an approach and then restructure information of a given multi-sport event as desired. But we shouldn't have gaps in our coverage because one article got nominated for deletion and the one next to it didn't. Simeon ( talk) 10:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete A listing of results with no significant independent coverage doesn't show WP notability. Papaursa ( talk) 11:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is getting on my nerves in sports-related deletion discussions. There isn't enough coverage. SWinxy ( talk) 19:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in high-quality sources. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 09:14, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.